Friday, August 15, 2014

The War on Wolves, American Public Wilderness Lands, Climate Change, Global Environment, Special Interest Groups, and The U.S.A. Congress

What is the Deep Root that Connects All of Them?

Summation of the Deep Root Series.

@Vote4Wilderness

This is the conclusion, or summation, to the Deep Root series that my partners and I have been working on, in order to shed light on the current political environment in the U.S.A. Congress that threatens to undermine safety protections for our wilderness and our wildlife Buddies who call American 'public lands' home.1. "The War on Wolves" Listed here are the Congressional members who initiated the proposal for the USFWS to delist our gray wolves as an endangered species, and remove E.S.A. protection for the wolves throughout the entire U.S.A.

A bipartisan group of 72 Members of Congress have written to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to urge that the Agency delist the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the Continental United States.

The letter was spearheaded by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and John Barrasso (R-WY), and Reps. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Doc Hastings (R-WA), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

In the letter, the Members of Congress write that “[w]olves are not an endangered species and do not merit federal protections. The full delisting of the species and the return of the management of wolf populations to State governments is long overdue. As you know, State governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage wolf populations and are able to meet both the needs of local communities and wildlife populations.”

The lawmakers added that an unmanaged wolf population poses a threat to the communities and surrounding livestock and indigenous wildlife, but that “currently State wildlife officials have their hands tied any time wolves are involved.” They add that State wildlife managers “need to be able to respond to the needs of their native wildlife without being burdened by the impediments of the federal bureaucracy created by the ESA.”

In addition to Hatch and Barrasso, Senators signing the letter were :

Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX)

Mike Crapo (R-ID)

Mike Enzi (R-WY)

Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

Dean Heller (R-NV)

Mike Lee (R-UT)

Joe Manchin (D-WV)

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

James Risch (R-ID)

John Thune (R-ND)

David Vitter (R-LA)

Members of the House signing the letter in addition to Lummis and Hastings were :

We understand the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is in the process of reviewing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery status of the gray wolf in the lower 48 States and is preparing to announce the delisting of the species. We support the nationwide delisting of wolves and urge you to move as quickly as possible on making this a reality. We were supportive of the USFWS decision in 2009 when most wolves were delisted in the Northern Rocky Mountains, again in 2011 when wolves in the Great Lake States were delisted, and the 2012 delisting in Wyoming. It is unfortunate that these decisions were met with lawsuits from environmental activists.

Wolves are not an endangered species and do not merit federal protections. The full delisting of the species and the return of the management of wolf populations to State governments is long overdue. As you know, State governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage wolf populations and are able to meet both the needs of local communities and wildlife populations.

Unmanaged wolves are devastating to livestock and indigenous wildlife. Currently State wildlife officials have their hands tied any time wolves are involved. They need to be able to respond to the needs of their native wildlife without being burdened by the impediments of the federal bureaucracy created by the ESA. During the four decades that wolves have had ESA protections, there has been an uncontrolled and unmanaged growth of wolf populations resulting in devastating impacts on hunting and ranching in America as well as tragic damages to historically strong and healthy herds of moose, elk, big horn sheep, and mule deer.

As you consider these much needed changes to federal protections with regard to the gray wolf, we urge you to expand the delisting of the species to all of the lower 48 states. It is critical that the states be given the ability to properly manage all of the species within their boundaries.

3. Climate change4. Global environmentTo address the third and fourth subjects in the series, climate change, and the global environment is beyond my comprehension to explain in depth. The reason it is included here, is that we know that climate does not stop at a country's borders, we have to be global players. Climate change deniers ‘serious threat’ to future, Obama sayshttp://exposingthebiggame.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/climate-change-deniers-serious-threat-to-future-obama-says/So when certain members of the U.S.A. Congress threaten to shut down our government in order to protest a decision made by the E.P.A. to cut carbon emissions by 30%, http://stopwaronwilderness.blogspot.com/p/usa-congress-and-climate-change.htmlit is clear to see that the U.S.A. certainly does not appear to be leading the charge in setting the standard for cleaner energy, which we need to address quickly, as our global environment is changing even more rapidly than predicted, and not for the better.One look at the wildfire season of 2014 proves that.

This is covered in depth here. The bottom line is that special interest groups are influencing national policy at the government level and that presents a conflict of interest.

Who spearheaded the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act? What is the connection to the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, American public wilderness, and the N.R.A. ~ National Rifle Association

See also “Citizen’s United” which has just recently been met with 3 million petition signatories addressing the U.S. Supreme Court. These three million people believe that Corporations have no right to purchase or financially lobby U.S.A. elections.

So what is the deep root that connects our U.S.A. public federal wilderness and wildlife to our American elected officials and the policy decisions they are making that detrimentally impact our country’s environment.

As my partner has said often:

“Follow the money”.

And these two men, David and Charles Koch are using their wealth in order to change policy in the U.S.A.

2012 election to set off furious battle to seize the public lands

Past efforts to grab national forests, parks, wildlife refuges led by livestock industry. Now it will be Koch Bros, oil, GOP-

It would appear that these men view the western U.S.A. as a resource to be plumbed for purposes of drilling for oil and fracking the Earth.

If rights to this land mass are weakened by removing federal E.S.A. protections for species and the land they inhabit, it will be far easier to obtain the right to drill in that land.

But this land should not be for sale.

It belongs to the people of the United States of America.

Please help to keep it that way.

On November 4. 2014, please cast your vote in the U.S.A. mid term elections and Vote4Wilderness, not for the politicians that wish to sell our public wilderness.Find out who to vote for, when to vote and where to vote here.

We are not quite half way through the Vote4Wilderness Series which involves a review of the widespread legislative attack on public lands, wilderness, wildlife, climate change and more. It is of the utmost importance that the landscapes and the vital, spectacular diversity of life remain restored and protected in this country. This series serves to show the connection between all of these national resources and the special and political interests attempting to destroy them. It will also suggest what we can do as Americans to make the changes necessary to preserve our national treasures. Following the series we will follow the legislative issues and races right into the November 2014 General Elections where your VOTE will COUNT!

The Vote4Wilderness Series just concluded with Part 4 – the War on Wolves mini-series, where we have reviewed the massive extermination of wolves, the reintroduction, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the premature de~listings and the current proposed gray wolf de~listing, the states’ mismanagement of wolves, wolves in national parks, wolves in the landscape, the facts and fiction of wolf myths, and finally, coexistence = living with wolves. There are many obstacles out there in the path for wolves to fully recover.

Humans have encroached on wilderness and wildlife habitat with livestock and development, pushing wildlife into smaller and smaller, more fractioned areas. There is an ancient old fear, anti-wolf mentality that fuels those who are not knowledgeable, not understanding the gray wolfs' role as an apex predator in the wild, vital in its environment. Nor do they seem to understand the wolves impact on the environment beyond their own back porch. If we aren’t careful, we will destroy and lose the wilderness and the wildlife that lives there all together. The obstacles are many, but they are not just out there in our landscape; some of the biggest obstacles lie in our political arenas, both at state and federal levels.

We have focused on the U.S.D.A’s wildlife killing arm, Wildlife Services, who has its own War on Wildlife agenda which entails: indiscriminate killing, environmental destruction and legal violations brought about largely by behest of the livestock industry.

We have the premature delisting of wolves in several states, the first time in the history of the Endangered Species Act that a species lost its federal protection due not from science, as mandated by the Act itself, but from political fast tracking. These states have offered a preview of their aggressive mismanagement of the species by the state agencies, who are run by anti-wolf, hunting, ranching and special interests, intent on exterminating the wolf as much as possible, with no regard for protection or conservation of the animal, nor the lands where the wildlife reside.

The current proposal by USFWS to delist wolves in the remaining 48 states, was proposed by the anti-wolf special interests and their congressional allies; Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and John Barrasso (R-WY) and Reps Cynthia Lumis (R-WY) and Doc Hastings (R-WA), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, and signed by 72 bipartisan congressional buddies. This proposal is another critical move to thwart the species by removing them prematurely from federal protections. This action would put an immediate and abrupt halt to gray wolf recovery, and may once again lead us down the path of wolf extinction. Part of the bigger picture appears to lead to open up more public lands to livestock grazing, hunting ,NRA recreation, and big oil development, among other special interests. Despite the Peer Review Board’s overwhelming determination that the proposal is not based on the best available science, as mandated, the USFWS continues to push the proposal.

Recently USFWS Director Dan Ashe, the man in the very position who was assigned the responsibility to protect these national treasures, has spoken out against them once again, that we as the American public should simply "accept a world with fewer wolves, salmon, and spotted owls," or be resigned to the loss of a species. This is not acceptable. We refuse to accept a world with fewer species and "a world with less biodiversity". Join Vote4Wilderness, Defenders of Wildlife, and many more in speaking out to remind Director Ashe that our nation’s wildlife and habitats are the natural legacy of every American – they belong to each of us, and it is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s mission to protect them. Please read an excellent piece from a very respected Conservation Biologist, from Ron Pulliam . . . WHAT WE MUST NOT ACCEPT . . .

We have taken a look at the War on Wolves in great detail from up to the current issues, including prematurely delisting wolves not based on science, but an aggressive political agenda; extreme mismanagement of wolves by the states including Idaho, with by far the most extreme prejudice against wolves. Idaho, well known as the kill-all state has been run by the leading wolf hating Governor Butch Otter, whom stated in fact that before the hunts were started in 2011, that he would hunt wolves legally or illegally, and wanted to be the first to kill a wolf. He continues with his advent that he wants to eliminate all wolves to the bare minimum possible to avoid re-listing. Idaho has the longest hunting season, where the beginning of the season is early enough and targets the years youngest pups at 4 months of age. Idaho anti-wolf citizens are notorious when it comes to promoting poaching, as well as how to kill a wolf to make it suffer the most. The state has hired guns to go in and kill entire packs of wolves, to benefit elk numbers for hunters. Some of these wolves were living in a wilderness area that was too remote and too rough of terrain,for hunters very to frequently hunt in the area, although the elk herd numbers were high.Governor Otter appointed a “wolf control board” receiving only $400,000 of the $2 million in funds requested to kill as many wolves as possible in the state. The state also allows sponsored wildlife killing derbies for prizes for the most coyotes and the largest wolves, and encourage children to participate.Governor Otter will be running against Democratic challenger A.J. Balukoff, who disagrees widely with Otter on his kill-all policies.

We’ve reviewed the barbaric hunting policies of Wisconsin, and the controversy surrounding the Michigan legislature voting in wolf hunts and taking away voter’s rights. We’ve gone over the hunting strategies of the states surrounding Yellowstone National Park and the outspoken hatred from the anti-wolf sentiment. The anti-wolf sentiments are screaming for further attempts to kill national park (Yellowstone) collared research wolves, highly targeted trophies by hunters in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The urgent requests and need for buffer zones from biologists, conservationists, and American citizens to prohibit hunting, trapping and baiting of wolves outside the park have been denied by the states agencies, at the request of hunting interests. In another urgent request Rep Peter DeFazio (D-OR) calls on the Interior to protect gray wolves in or near national parks.

We’ve seen recently how the state of Washington responded for the second time to livestock depredation, where the rancher was negligent in placement of the herd, and did nothing to deter the wolves. The most recent case of the Huckleberry Wolf Pack, where the media played into the Steven’s County Cattlemen’s Association story that the factual information and the lacking responsibility of the rancher to deploy any nonlethal methods to deter wolves. The story was missing information, and reported contradictory and misleading information as to the occurring facts during the days of depredation and the subsequent jump to kill order for the pack. They failed to mention that rancher Deschielle was strongly connected to the wolf management board and was president of the Steven’s County Cattlemens’ Association. Many mistakes were made, resulting in missed opportunities to avoid this conflict and save lives of the livestock and wolves.

Yet, we have also reviewed Oregon, the state that sets the bar on working with all parties to bring together a compromise and a formal wolf management plan that includes protection, conservation, and the best for all parties, to sustain a healthy future for all. While not a perfect plan, it is working. And, California recently agreed to protect gray wolves as they begin to return to their state.

The massive legislative attack on wildlife, wilderness and public lands is widespread:

We have Congressional legislative proposals to limit the Endangered Species Definition. A proposal by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services and the National Marine Fisheries Service in an attempt to water down the Endangered Species Act to make determination of a species, making it more difficult to list as endangered or threatened.

One of the most prominent is the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act \S.2363-S.1335-S.1996

A critically dangerous bill that in itself as well with it's numerous anti-environmental amendments, is an assault on public lands, wilderness, and wildlife. The aim of this bill was to open up millions of acres of wilderness, including protected areas to hunting and trapping. This was a monumental bill attacking our public lands, wilderness & wildlife. The bill would have made it easier to kill wolves and other wildlife on federal lands and more difficult to protect endangered species.

So who spearheaded the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act? What is the connection of the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act to the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, the American public wilderness, public lands and the N.R.A.?

Senator Kay Hagan, (D- NC) spearheaded the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act. Hagan is also the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus Co-Chair, and supported by the foundation known as The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. SPORTSMEN DRIVEN CONSERVATION is what the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation promotes.

We have the Sage Grouse; Can Big Oil and Conservation work together? Unless Oil and Gas Companies can compromise with conservationists, 11 states and their economies stand to lose billions.

The proposal to remove the Grizzly from the Endangered Species Act? Yet, the need for them to be reintroduced in the north, science based. The unwillingness of the administration to list the few remaining wolverines on the ESA; what value is our country, our Congress giving to species?

Then there is the "THE EMPTY OCEANS ACT", the oceans law reauthorization process begins. The legislation was nicknamed as the “The Empty Oceans Act” because it threatens protections for marine species. This was the first attempt by Congress to update this nation's most important oceans law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Some of these pieces of legislation are so unbelievable that many do not take them seriously. They are real and part of a massive assault to take away wildlife, wilderness, land and national treasures.

We have the more direct attacks on American Public Lands with TED CRUZ LAUNCHES SENATE FIGHT TO AUCTION OFF AMERICA'S PUBLIC LANDS. Another attempt by the far right in Congress to wrangle American public lands out of the control of the U.S.A. Federal Government jurisdiction.

Then of course we have Cliven Bundy:

BACKGROUNDING BUNDY: THE MOVEMENT 07/2014To hear much of the media describe the Cliven Bundy standoff with the federal government in Nevada this spring, the armed confrontation over Bundy’s refusal to pay cattle grazing fees was unique, a shocking conflict joined by militias and others on the radical right that came close to turning into a bloodbath. And it was, in terms of its utter brazenness. Rarely have even the most militant of members of the anti~government “Patriot” movement been photographed aiming sniper rifles at the heads of law enforcement officials. Almost never has a group of heavily armed right-wing radicals, facing large numbers of equally heavily armed law enforcement, forced the government to back down.

So then, what do gray wolves, the ESA, public lands, wilderness, and climate change have to do with the U.S.A. Congress? . . . . . Everything! This all is only just the tip of the iceberg. As Vote4Wilderness continues the series, the focus still remains on “The War on Wolves, American Public Wilderness Lands, Climate Change, Global Environment, Special Interest Groups, and The U.S.A. Congress . . . . What is the Deep Root that Connects All of Them?

The War on Wolves is a fact and is currently in progress as has been shown. It is a war within itself, and it is also a part of a bigger picture. There seems to be the all out agenda for many special interest groups: hunting, livestock, excessive and unnecessary wildlife abuses, ranching, development, big oil, the NRA, the GOP, TeaParty and the Koch Brothers, to destroy all wilderness and wildlife protections in order for an all out land grab. These widespread legislative attacks on wildlife, ESA, wilderness, public lands, and climate change will ultimately rein open all lands, endangered wilderness, wildlife and national treasures at the disposal of hunting, the NRA, ranching and of course big oil. Every one of these issues are directly linked to the U.S.A. political climate at the core. Change the environment of law and policy makers first, then we can change the world for our wildlife.

Haynes, if elected – will open WY & YNP up to drilling. His opponent Dem Richard Grayson WY disagrees and responds to this proposal.

2) We will take a closer look at USFWS Director Dan Ashe’s Declaration

3) Further details on the legislative attempts to dismantle the ESA, and the endangered species with their fight for survival; sage grouse, grizzlies, and wolverines, Rep DeFazio’s boundaries and Wildlife Services legal wildlife extermination on behalf of ranchers and big oil, termed “Predator Control”. Are all of these connected?

We will look at the delay by Congress to support wildland firefighting efforts, thereby allowing the American West and Pacific Northwest (to) burn. . . . even though fires raged through some of their own homeland districts.

And we will review the overwhelming Climate Change denial in Congress and the GOPs threat to shut down the country on more than one occasion. And finally the GOP, TeaParty and the Koch Brothers agenda including the Supreme Court ruling for no cap on lobby limits for campaigns and foreign interests. This is in whose best interests?

The massive deep rooted connection lies in the political climate that is deeply connected to all of these issues. Vote4Wilderness Series has provided and will continue to provide for the remainder of the series, a background for issues that have political core, and will require our ingenuity as a voting population to put the appropriate Congressional policy makers in position to protect our wildlife, wilderness, and environment. Please stay tuned as we continue the series; be informed, spread the word, and Vote4Wilderness in 2014!

Mr. Amodei introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to permit Governors of States to regulate intrastate endangered species and intrastate threatened species, and for other purposes.

1. Short title

This Act may be cited as the Endangered Species Management Self-Determination Act .

2. Definition of ESA

In this Act, the term ESA means the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

3. Findings

Congress finds that—

(1) the ESA was passed in 1973 as a means of protecting and recovering species and has not been substantially revised in over 25 years;

(2) the ESA has not achieved its stated goal of recovering threatened species or endangered species;

(3) of the species listed in accordance with the ESA, less than 1 percent of the total number of species in the United States have been recovered and removed from the list, largely due to data errors or other factors;

(4) there is—

(A) no comprehensive independent study of the costs or benefits of the ESA;

(B) no full accounting of how much the Federal Government and State and local governments spend to implement, enforce, and comply with the ESA; and

(C) no meaningful effort to account for the costs the ESA imposes on the private sector;

(5) the ESA effectively penalizes landowners for owning endangered species habitat by forcing them to bear the cost of conservation;

(6) the regulatory listing process under the ESA has become a tool for environmentalists to undermine, slow down, or halt construction of infrastructure projects, hampering economic growth and employment; and

(7) litigation stemming from the ESA and some resulting settlements between the litigants and the Federal Government have made the ESA even more unworkable, to the detriment of species.

4. Determinations of endangered species and threatened species

Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( 16 U.S.C. 1533 ) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting , with the consent of the Governor of each State in which the endangered species or threatened species is present, after The Secretary ; and

(B) in paragraph (2)(A)(ii), by inserting , with the consent of the Governor of each State in which the endangered species or threatened species is present, after , who;

(2) in subsection (b)—

(A) by striking paragraph (3);

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (8) as paragraphs (3) through (7), respectively;

In this subsection, the term best scientific and commercial data includes any scientific evidence made available to the Secretary by any State agency.

;

(3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:

(c) Lists

(1) Definition of joint resolution

In this subsection, the term joint resolution means only a joint resolution the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: That Congress approves the lists relating to endangered species and threatened species submitted by the Secretary of the Interior on ______. (the blank space being appropriately filled in).

(2) Lists submitted to Congress

The Secretary of the Interior shall submit to Congress—

(A) a list of all species determined by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce to be endangered species; and

(B) a list of all species determined by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce to be threatened species.

(3) Congressional approval

The lists described in paragraph (2) shall not take effect until a joint resolution described in paragraph (1) is enacted.

(4) Contents of lists

Each list described in paragraph (2) shall—

(A) refer to the species included on the list by any scientific and common name; and

(B) specify—

(i) with respect to the species over what portion of the range of the species that the species is endangered or threatened; and

(ii) any critical habitat within the range.

(5) Publication

The Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register each list approved in accordance with paragraph (3).

(6) Automatic removal

(A) In general

On the date that is 5 years after the date on which a joint resolution is enacted in accordance with this subsection, each species listed on a list approved by the joint resolution shall be removed from the list.

(B) Petition for relisting

(i) In general

The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Governor of each State in which the endangered species or threatened species is present, may submit to Congress a list that includes any species that was removed under subparagraph (A).

(ii) Congressional approval

The list described in clause (i) shall not take effect until a joint resolution described in paragraph (1) is enacted.

;

(4) in subsection (d)—

(A) in the first sentence, by striking Whenever any species and inserting Except as provided in subsection (j), whenever any species; and

(B) in the second sentence, by striking The Secretary may and inserting Except as provided in subsection (j), the Secretary may;

(5) in subsection (f)(1), by striking The Secretary shall and inserting Except as provided in subsection (j), the Secretary shall;

(6) in subsection (g)(1), by striking The Secretary shall and inserting Except as provided in subsection (j), the Secretary shall;

(7) in subsection (h)—

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking The Secretary shall and inserting Except as provided in subsection (j), the Secretary shall;

(B) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2); and

(C) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively;

(8) in subsection (i)—

(A) by striking or if the Secretary fails to adopt a regulation pursuant to an action petitioned by a State agency under subsection (b)(3),; and

(B) by striking or petition; and

(9) by adding at the end the following:

(j) Intrastate endangered species or threatened species

(1) Definitions

In this subsection:

(A) Governor of a State

The term Governor of a State means the Governor of a State in which an intrastate endangered species or intrastate threatened species is present.

(B) Intrastate endangered species

The term intrastate endangered species means an endangered species that the Governor of a State determines is present only within the State.

(C) Intrastate threatened species

The term intrastate threatened species means a threatened species that the Governor of a State determines is present only within the State.

(2) Currently listed species

(A) In general

The Governor of a State may regulate any intrastate endangered species or any intrastate threatened species listed under this section that is listed before the date of enactment of this subsection.

(B) Authority of Governor

If the Governor of a State elects to regulate an intrastate endangered species or an intrastate threatened species under subparagraph (A), the Governor of the State shall, with respect to the management of the intrastate endangered species or intrastate threatened species on any land within the State, have the exclusive authority to, in accordance with the purposes and policy of this Act—

(i) promulgate or enforce any regulation or guidance;

(ii) designate a critical habitat;

(iii) issue a permit or license;

(iv) develop or implement a recovery plan; and

(v) establish any goal with respect to the recovery plan.

(C) Applicable law

The management described in subparagraph (B) shall be subject to the law of the State in which the land, including public lands (as defined in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ( 43 U.S.C. 1702 )), is located.

(3) Newly listed species

(A) In general

The Governor of a State may, before the Secretary or any other person, regulate any intrastate endangered species or any intrastate threatened species listed under this section that is listed on or after the date of enactment of this subsection.

(B) Applicability

If the Governor of a State elects to regulate an intrastate endangered species or an intrastate threatened species under subparagraph (A), subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) shall apply.

(C) Judicial review

Any action by the Governor of a State under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review in any court of the United States or in any State court.

.

5. Cost accounting

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is amended by inserting after section 12 ( 16 U.S.C. 1541 ) the following:

12A. Cost accounting report

(a) Definitions

In this section:

(1) Direct costs

The term direct costs includes—

(A) Federal agency obligations related to the cost of any study;

(B) capital, operation, maintenance, and replacement costs; and

(C) staffing costs.

(2) Indirect costs

The term indirect costs includes foregone power generation costs and replacement power costs, including the net costs of any transmission of power.

(b) Cost of compliance

(1) In general

Except with respect to intrastate endangered species or intrastate threatened species regulated by a Governor of a State under section 4(j), the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration, the Administrator of the Southeastern Power Administration, the Administrator of the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration shall each include in a monthly billing statement submitted to each customer of the respective Administration the share of the direct and indirect costs to the customer incurred by the Administration related to complying with this Act.

(2) Assistance in identifying costs

The Director of the Bureau of Reclamation shall assist the administrators described in paragraph (1) with identifying the costs described in that paragraph.

(c) Report

Not later than January 30 of each year, each of the administrators described in subsection (b)(1), in coordination with the Director of the Bureau of Reclamation, shall submit to the Committee on Environment of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a report estimating the costs described in subsection (b)(1)—

(1) with respect to the Western Area Power Administration, on a project-by-project basis; and

(2) with respect to the each of the Administrations described in subsection (b)(1) (except the Western Power Administration), on a systemwide basis.

12B. Property rights

(a) Determination of proposed use of real property

(1) In general

Any owner or lessee of any real property may submit to the Secretary of the Interior an application that includes any proposed use of the real property.

(2) Determination

(A) In general

Not later than 90 days after the date on which the application described in paragraph (1) is submitted, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the owner or lessee in writing a determination as to whether the proposed use will violate any provision of this Act.

(B) Failure to respond

If the Secretary of the Interior fails to respond before the expiration of the 90-day period described in subparagraph (A), the proposed use shall be considered to not violate any provision of this Act.

(3) Effect of determinations

(A) Affirmative defense

It is an affirmative defense to any civil penalty assessed under section 11 or to any civil action, civil suit, or prosecution brought under that section that the owner or lessee of real property reasonably relied on a determination, including a determination that resulted under paragraph (2)(B), that a proposed use will not violate any provision of this Act.

(B) Compensation for unfavorable determinations

If the Secretary of the Interior determines that a proposed use will violate a provision of this Act, the owner or lessee of the real property may seek compensation in accordance with subsection (b).

(b) Compensation for agency actions

(1) Definitions

In this subsection:

(A) Agency action

(i) In general

The term agency action means any action taken by the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with this Act that diminishes the fair market value of any real property by not less than 50 percent with respect to the intended use of the real property.

(ii) Exclusion

The term agency action does not include any action taken with respect to intrastate endangered species or intrastate threatened species regulated by a Governor of a State under section 4(j).

(B) Lessee

The term lessee means a lessee of any real property affected by an agency action.

(C) Owner

The term owner means an owner of any real property affected by an agency action.

(2) Compensation

Except as provided in paragraph (3)(B), not later than 180 days after the date on which an agency action takes place, the Secretary shall pay an owner or lessee an amount equal to 150 percent of the fair market value of the real property determined in accordance with paragraph (3).

(3) Determination of fair market value

(A) In general

The fair market value described in paragraph (2) shall be determined by 2 licensed independent appraisers of whom—

(i) 1 shall be chosen by the Secretary; and

(ii) 1 shall be chosen by the owner or lessee.

(B) Failure to agree on fair market value

(i) In general

If the appraisers chosen under subparagraph (A) fail to agree on the same fair market value, the Secretary and the owner shall jointly select an additional licensed independent appraiser to determine the fair market value.

(ii) Extension of time to make determination

The licensed independent appraiser described in clause (i) shall determine the fair market value not later than 270 days after the date on which the agency action takes place.

(C) Costs

The Secretary shall be responsible for all costs relating to the determination of fair market value made under this paragraph.